DOE to Award $2.4B in Funding for Carbon Capture, Storage and Reuse Projects
16 May 2009
The US Department of Energy (DOE) will award $2.4 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to expand and accelerate the commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and reuse technology. The Department is posting Notices of Intent to issue this funding, supporting the following initiatives:
Clean Coal Power Initiative. $800 million will be used to expand DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, which provides government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants. The new funding will allow researchers broader CCS commercial-scale experience by expanding the range of technologies, applications, fuels, and geologic formations that are tested.
Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage. $1.52 billion will be used for a two-part competitive solicitation for large-scale CCS from industrial sources. The industrial sources include, but are not limited to, cement plants, chemical plants, refineries, steel and aluminum plants, manufacturing facilities, and petroleum coke-fired and other power plants.
The second part of the solicitation will include innovative concepts for beneficial CO2 reuse (CO2 mineralization, algae production, etc.) and CO2 capture from the atmosphere. In addition, two existing industrial and innovative reuse projects, previously selected via competitive solicitations, will be expanded to accelerate scale-up and field testing:
Ramgen Modification ($20 million). Funding will allow the industrial-sized scale-up and testing of an existing advanced CO2 compression project with the objective of reducing time to commercialization, technology risk, and cost. Work on this project will be done in Bellevue, WA.
Arizona Public Services Modification ($70.6 million): Funding will permit the existing algae-based carbon mitigation project to expand testing with a coal-based gasification system. The goal is to produce fuels from domestic resources while reducing atmospheric CO2 emissions.
The overall process will minimize production of carbon dioxide in the gasification process to produce a substitute natural gas (SNG) from coal. The host facility for this project is the Cholla Power Plant located in Holbrook, AZ.
Geologic Sequestration Site Characterization. $50 million will fund a competitive solicitation to characterize a minimum of 10 geologic formations throughout the United States. Projects will be required to complement and build upon the existing characterization base created by DOE’s Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, looking at broadening the range and extent of geologic basins that have been studied to date. The goal of this effort is to accelerate the determination of potential geologic storage sites.
Geologic Sequestration Training and Research. $20 million will be used to educate and train a future generation of geologists, scientists, and engineers with skills and competencies in geology, geophysics, geomechanics, geochemistry and reservoir engineering disciplines needed to staff a broad national CCS program. This program will emphasize advancing educational opportunities across a broad range of minority colleges and universities and will use DOE’s University Coal Research Program as the model for implementing the program.
Industrial carbon capture and storage makes a lot of sense especially in relation to the production of biofuels where the CO2 life cycle reduction can be over 100%. However, the “clean” coal power carbon capture and storage is a total waste of money because there is a cleaner and less expensive alternative. That alternative is to replace existing coal power plants with alternative energy notably wind power. Carbon capture from coal power does not remove all of the carbon (max 80%) and the combined cost of coal power and carbon capture makes the produced electricity importantly more expensive than power from wind turbines. Therefore, it is a waste of money. Give the money to the wind turbine industry so that they can accelerate their R&D in this still immature industry with plenty of opportunity for sizable efficiency gains and cost reductions (e.g. through more use of carbon fiber materials, superconductive generators, better blade design, more efficient power electronics, cooling systems etc).
Posted by: Account Deleted | 16 May 2009 at 05:35 AM
Carbon capture sent to (airtight?) soil depths sounds bizarre, but I know little of this tech.
Many startups claim CO2 capture to industrical chemical sales or onsite feeding algae yeilding biofuel. Don't any of these approachs have more merit?
Posted by: kelly | 16 May 2009 at 07:53 AM
It would be something if they stored CO2 in old spent natural gas wells (gas tight for a long time) and found out years later that the CO2 is a valuable commodity. They know just where to find a bunch of it.
Posted by: SJC | 16 May 2009 at 08:25 AM
Hey I'm all for "cleaner"[it's not clean - just cleaner] coal technology and CCS but only if it's used retroactively.
The simple fact is the existing coal power plants et al. are going to be around for a long time, (That's not how I want it but it is how it is.), so we have to clean them up as much as we can.
However the worry is some nitwit will use the development of these techs to justify building more of them.
Posted by: ai_vin | 16 May 2009 at 08:56 AM
I think most of the 600 coal fired power plants are being used as "cash cows". Clinton wanted them to upgrade if they expanded. Bush said forget it, just expand the same old dirty way. More money in that.
Posted by: SJC | 16 May 2009 at 09:24 AM
How do you propse to supply electricity to the base load with wind power? If the fraction of generating capcity from wind turbines gets much above 15% the whole system becomes unstable because the wind is unreliable.
Posted by: Mannstein | 16 May 2009 at 10:22 AM
Mannstein:
Peak loads cannot be supplied by variable output power sources such as Sun or Wind unless you have very large e-storage facilities. Otherwise, energy will not be there when needed.
However, if you use wind and sun (as part of) or as base load you can use other sources such as Hydro or NG units for peak load and/or as complementary base laod when needed.
Hydro reservoirs are in fact huge energy storage facilities that can be used at will, specially if your have over-generating capicity.
NG units can also be easily and quickly turned on and off for peak load and complementary base load. Unused NG stay in the distribution system.
Wind power can be stable enough when a few thousand wind turbines, installed in different geographical areas, are connected to the same grid.
Posted by: HarveyD | 16 May 2009 at 11:05 AM
You create renewable methane from biomass and convert ALL the coal plants to combined cycle power plants. Simple, easy and a no brainer.
Posted by: SJC | 16 May 2009 at 01:12 PM
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_TheBaseLoadFallacy_FS16.pdf
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/windfarm-120507.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
Posted by: ai_vin | 16 May 2009 at 03:54 PM
Renewables can also be load following;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNZgjEDPe24
"The secure and constant provision of power anywhere and at anytime by renewable energies is now made possible thanks to the Combined Power Plant. The Combined Power Plant links and controls 36 wind, solar, biomass and hydropower installations spread throughout Germany. It is just as reliable and powerful as a conventional large-scale power station.
The Combined Renewable Energy Power Plant shows how, through joint control of small and decentralised plants, it is possible to provide reliable electricity in accordance with needs. The Combined Power Plant optimally combines the advantages of various renewable energy sources. Wind turbines and solar modules help generate electricity in accordance with how much wind and sun is available. Biogas and hydropower are used to make up the difference: they are converted into electricity as needed in order to balance out short-term fluctuations, or are temporarily stored. Technically, there is nothing preventing us from 100 per cent provision with renewables."
This test matched supply to load minute by minute for several months.
Posted by: ai_vin | 16 May 2009 at 03:59 PM
The mass and volume of the CO2 that would have to be handled to significantly reduce our fossil CO2 emissions (about 10 billion tonnes per year) is comparable to that of the world's entire petroleum production. The expense merely of the equipment needed is around a trillion dollars. Add to that the continuing expense of the energy required to liquefy and pump the CO2, and the whole thing looks hopeless. But so be it: the sooner we waste a few billions to demonstrate beyond doubt that it is hopeless the sooner we will give it up and turn to real solutions.
Posted by: richard schumacher | 19 May 2009 at 07:28 AM